Search results

Well if you don't care to discuss the facts then I don't care to discuss anything else with you right now.

It is obviously a bit subjective. Use your definition and let's see what we can agree on. Not exactly, I do agree that the oceans have been (on average) increasing over the last 18,000 years, but it isn't merely from the melting of polar ice - it is also due to thermal expansion. So what is...

Well you accused me of being over-emotional when the evidence shows the people I'm arguing against aren't getting their facts right - which is typical of emotionally-driven thinking (of course everyone makes mistakes - but there is a pattern here).

And none of your oh-so-interesting psychological analysis addresses the fact that nearly every time one of them has made a solid statement of "fact" it has been shown to be completely wrong. This is an issue of credibility; they've repeatedly said stupid things like "carbon dioxide is the most...

Who said that? I flat out said that I think humans are causing some warming due to our release of carbon dioxide. But to turn that statement back to you: Why do some people (liberals) care so deeply that humans are the source of all problems?

Ah a mind-reader! How fantastic! And if you believe that then you should've made your case. You didn't - in fact, I showed you didn't know what you were talking about. And that's why you shifted to this line of attack against me (mind-reading and what-not).

The argument is against "unforeseen change" - well that's rather stupid now isn't it? Quite a fun way to attempt to live life - you are basically arguing for the precautionary principle. No, carbon dioxide is pumped into greenhouses to increase productivity. You appear to be making things up...

The problem you have here is that every time one you guys have put a toe in the water of science I've demonstrated that you guys don't even know basic scientific facts. This is understandably quite embarrassing to you since none of you can defend your position with facts. And as I predicted...

Well that's obvious if you understand the science. The greenhouse gas effect is essentially "saturated" over most of the earth due to the presence of water vapor. In places like the poles, with very little water vapor, carbon dioxide will have a much stronger effect. This would obviously be a...

Ah so you come in here, clap at post calling me a "daft plank" and then you whine that I hurt your feelings? Maybe you should take a hike from this thread since you clearly aren't capable of being impartial on this subject.

The word "logic" doesn't have to be directly stated for it to apply. Again, read the article I linked, it makes a clear logical case for why the burden of proof must lie with the person making the claim. I do not think we are going to see eye-to-eye on this subject though. I was sort-of...

:applaus: Perhaps I should emulate you and insert a clapping icon at some idiotic post - that would be a fantastic contribution I'm sure. Maybe even next time I won't be sarcastic about it. And I've only been combative with liars, idiots or dicks.

And I would agree with that statement as well. Most scientists don't disagree that there is a greenhouse effect and that we've contributed to it with CO2 emissions. The disagreements come from the very speculative computer models which exaggerate hypothetical positive feedback mechanisms while...

Well that is the primary argument of global warming alarmists now isn't it? And if you don't think carbon dioxide levels have any meaning then perhaps you can tell botanists to stop pumping their greenhouses full of carbon dioxide. Again, don't worry, I know you are just disagreeing for the...

Yes yes, and I'm sure F types, or those using their F functions, will complain that logic is childish when it is pointed out that they are engaging in logically fallacious thinking. And let's be absolutely clear here - that's exactly what you are doing. Best to go with those feelings of...

Yes I've studied it in quite a bit of detail. I'm a bit out of the loop though and haven't heard the "it will trigger an ice age" thing. Sounds like bollocks to me. I'm assuming you are either referring to the thermohaline circulation slowing/stopping, but I suppose you might've misunderstood...

I'm sorry if you don't understand "burden of proof" and that you think it is childish. Perhaps this can help educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden If that doesn't educate you then I don't see any point in you responding further. If you...

Most likely. On net though ice ages are worse for life as a whole. In contrast, a warmer world is likely to provide far more benefits than harms.

Aww an audience of clapping seals. I should start counting them - I certainly can't count anyone making any sort of case that global warming is going to be a serious problem.

The thread was obviously directed at global warming believers who think it is going to be a catastrophe. If you don't think that then you have no business being on the thread now do you? His Geocarb III paper is cited by 771 others - you can find other datasets with similar data. But thank you...

That's right. I made the thread and in the title I asked people to make their case that global warming is going to be a catastrophe. In an attempt to keep things fact-based I also presented a list of facts that are pretty much indisputable. Of course, global warming believers don't actually...

I haven't tried to make a case for anything. I'm asking for the people making the claim (that global warming will cause catastrophe) to make their case. The burden of proof is on those making that claim - have at it if you can. So far I've just seen the typical pseudo-religious thinking...

I see no reason for you to respond at all since you insist on acting like some child that creates rules on the fly in order to declare himself some sort of victor. Actually, I take that back, at least that child, while still understandably an immature ass, is using his own brain to create his...

Humans and the biosphere in general.

Amusing, I show your complete ignorance on the subject and you resort to a typical practice amongst the religious - shunning. After all, we can't let any of the other believers interact with someone who might change their mind. Don't worry, the responses I've gotten so far have been typical of...

Like the change in temperature from night to day and from summer to winter? There are other temperature changes as well - some cyclical (oceanic oscillations) and others that are less predictable (like the Little Ice Age that ended in the late 1800's). Life is highly adaptable though - it has...

I'm sorry, but are you stupid - or blind? That graph cites the source for its data - which is peer-reviewed. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ra+berner+2001&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38 And peer-review isn't a good measurement of truth - amusingly you can even find several peer-reviewed...

No argument, just asking people who believe anthropogenic warming is going to be a catastrophe to make their case for it - and their case for action. I merely added a few facts at the start to guide the conversation a bit.

Prove that my data is incorrect or you are basically making an argument from ignorance. Biodiversity and biomass is highest at warmer temperatures. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? This map shows you the amount of biomass on the planet - you'll notice the density is highest at the...

Keep in mind: 1. Carbon dioxide levels are at very low levels and that life evolved under and currently thrives under higher levels: 2. Life typically thrives under higher temperatures. For example, compare the equatorial climates to the polar ones. Also, look at the number of human...